“An Unprecedented Betrayal”: Former Military Leaders Condemn Trump’s Trans Troops Ban

PV2 Joy Phillip - That's as may be...but if they are trying to make "transgender" a socially acceptable term and condition, then they need to let that go...you cannot on the one hand say the word is good under THIS circumstance, but bad under THAT circumstance.

Meaning is derived as much, if not more, by usage as by definition, both positive and negative.

If it's not "bad" to be "transgender" (adjective), then it CANNOT be bad to be "transgender" (noun). "Transgender" (noun) is NOT the same as "tranny" (noun, slang-pejorative).

CPO Glenn Moss - Chief, I served on two subs, among the ships I was on. I know the ethos you are describing...

PV2 Joy Phillip - Joy - I deliberately avoided the language issue in my reply to Chief Moss, because there is a bigger issue at hand here, and he gets it. As a trans woman and trans activist, there are times I bring this up, but I felt it wouldn't help here... All the best, Rona

CPO Glenn Moss respect Chief. I agree basically with this we just said the government can't be trusted to keep it's word. The message this sends is just wrong.

SFC (Join to see) - The Naval Postgraduate School faculty report says the cost the proposed ban on transgender member service would be at least $960 million—100 times more than the estimated $8.4 Million cost of transgender healthcare. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
SSgt Alex Ingram
CW3 Lindsey Muller
LTJG (Join to see)
SSG Jacey R.
LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow
CMDCM Gene Treants
http://www.palmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cost-of-firing-trans-troops.pdf

1LT Sandy Annala - It is perfectly okay for you to take a shot at my service but when you think the favor is returned (I only agreed with you) ,you fly off into a tizzy about yours. I never said a disparaging word about yours but you did try to go after mine. You might want to consider that in your responses to other veterans.

I posted the previous code intentionally Sandy, perhaps your rabid ideology is effecting your reading comprehension. I was asked to produce the policy which kept TG's and others from serving. That was the policy that did so. I even gave the date of the policy to be clear. I am aware it was changed as the policy was lifted which is what we are talking about. If you cannot keep up, feel free to stand down.

I disagree with you so now I need psychiatric care. You are becoming the queen of the logical fallacy used on RP. You are now able to be "clinical" and make psychiatric diagnoses on a web site. I field you have no expertise in and on line. Good stuff. You should know that makes you look even more ridiculous than your rabid ideology. I will let you have the last parting shot if you want it. because it is impossible to have a conversation with someone emotionally out of control.

Cpl Jeff N. - I know the ban dates from 1960's in part because this is when number of visible transsexuals and transgenders began to touch public consciousness - and in part this is when we started using medical qualifications to screen politically or socially undesirable people who were becoming more visible from military service. We were able to draft enough people for the Vietnam War we could enforce prejudices. I thank you for your service - my point was not whether or not you served honorably - rather whether you had adequate perspective to judge people you criticize for making decisions about transgenders - because in your eyes they never win a major conflict. With respect to transgenders - they actually based their policy on independent reports and internal reports re the cost vs benefits of recriting and retaining transgender SM's. The new president is basing his ban on pure conjecture and personal prejudice - and catering to an extreme right wing base that discriminates against the LGBT community. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Cpl Jeff N.
Clearly, you are not a student of history. We have not "won" a war since WW II, so therefore by your statement, every one of us who have served since then is a hack. Do you really mean that? The reality is that LGBT people have always been in the military. We just haven't been out. But ask folks like Logan Ireland, Ken Ochoa, CW3 Lindsey Muller (who has the CIB and is an Apache gunship pilot) about being warriors. They all have multiple combat tours under their belts, as their true selves. You are entitled to your opinions, and this is a free country, so you can say what you want, but... you would do well to actually have some facts and knowledge behind what you say, or everyone, irrespective of identity, will recognize who the true hack is.

Politics aside, and focusing on the human aspect of the situation; what are your opinions of some of their statements such as the one below and a few others within, remembering the serving transgender Soldiers are other red blooded American Freedom Fighters:

"Fanning’s declaration was equally stark. 'Commanders have told the enlisted soldiers they command that they must treat transgender service members the same as all others,' he wrote.

'Now they are being directed by the Commander in Chief that those same soldiers are unfit to serve. The new policy reinstitutes discrimination with no factual basis to do so. Imposing new discriminatory standards without any justification is enormously disruptive to unit cohesion and undermines the principle of mutual respect which is essential to the military’s effectiveness.'"